Law is at Fault Not Bulk
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Liquid Transport Tv7lrasmiti
INCREASES in unladen weight during the currency of special A licences I were again the subject of legal argument at Manchester, last Friday, when Bulk Liquid Transport, Ltd., Gildersome, applied to transfer four articulated tankers from special A licences to a public A licence. Two points of general interest were raised.
The first was a contention by the British Transport Commission that substitutions involving a change from rigid vehicles and trailers to articulated outfits, although within the permitted weight, were not applications that a Licensing Authority was bound to grant. This was not accepted by the North Western Licensing Authority, Mr. F. Williamson.
The second, put forward by the independent obrectors, was that if Bulk Liquid Transport practices were upheld, they intended to increase their tonnage by the same means. Such a development could, if the application were granted as sought, lead to further complications before the last special A licence expired.
Mr. A. Goss, for Bulk Liquid Transport, said the shares of the company were now all held by the Bradford Dyers' Association and Cawood Wharton and Co., Ltd. They were seeking what was, in effect, a straight renewal for four vehicles by replacing special A licences by a public A licence.
Mr. B. Skelly, transport manager, crossexamined by Mr. A. W. Balne, for the Commission, agreed that two of the vehicles assigned by Woodcock's Transport in July, 1957, were "flats," replaced almost immediately by articulated outfits, the semi-trailers surrendered being on separate licences.
Vehicles Converted Mr. Balne said none of the fleet was originally a tanker. All had been either rigid or articulated platform vehicles. Bulk Liquid Transport had used two methods of conversion. Either a vehicle bought under special A licence was, after assignment, altered to a tanker by substitution within the permitted weight and later fitted with a larger tank, or the company acquired a rigid vehicle from one place and a drawbar trailer from another, and varied the licence by introducing an articulated outfit.
It would not have been operationally possible to do their present work if they had used the vehicles as assigned.
A vital point of principle was involved, for the grant of a vehicle and drawbar trailer should not entitle an operator to use an articulated vehicle under special A licence. If a Licensing Authority was bound to grant such a substitution, the intention of the law was defeated, although it would be very convenient for the Commission if, with many general goods vehicles and trailers standing idle, they could, as of right, convert them into articulated tankers and low-loaders.
This would be a solution of the difficulties of British Road Services, but in their view it was not lawful. Either an assignee should operate the same vehicle or he should apply for a public A licence. Such substitutions were applications a Licensing Authority was not bound to grant and should have been brought to public inquiry.
A32 The applicants' argument that the Licensing Authority was not concerned with the total unladen weight of an articulated outfit, because part of it was a semi-trailer, might apply to the 1933 Act, but there was nothing in the 1953 Act which entitled a Licensing Authority to identify a vehicle by type. The criterion was unladen weight.
The 1953 statute plainly intended that vehicles should not exceed the original weight specified in the registration book. and any increase should involve an application for a public A licence.
Such methods of entering the tanker industry were irregular, and were defeating the intention of the statute.
Mr. H. D. Mace, for A. S. Jones and Co., Ltd., and Reliance Motors (Diesel), Ltd., said the application was of great importance, for if the Licensing Authority said Bulk Liquid Transport were right, the objectors intended to increase their fleets by the same means.
Nineteen vehicles had been brought into the North Western Traffic Area in direct competition with existing operators without having to prove neecL If these vehicles had been restricted to their original unladen weight the additional tonnage carried would have been available to the objectors.
Quarrel with Act The objectors were aggrieved, said Mr. Goss, but their quarrel should be with the Act—not with the applicants. There was no goodwill with special A licences and purchasers had to find traffic.
Everything had been done with the full knowledge of the Licensing Authority. All substitutions were notified and one was the subject of a public inquiry. There was evidence that the vehicles were fully occupied and the application should be granted.
Reserving decision. Mr. Williamson said that he agreed with Mr. Goss that the objectors' complaint was against the law rather than the company. Neither the 1933 nor 1953 Act referred to articulated vehicles as such. On the question whether Bulk Liquid Transport had fully disclosed their intentions when applying for substitutions, the whole
matter would be reviewed. •